Monday, August 13, 2007

If it's option 2, of course, then Homeland Security might intentionally choose to enforce the law in as clumsy, heartless, and lawsuit-inspiring a fashion as possible, in order to create the maximum number of negative headlines. ... Certainly the case for the paranoid option (2) was enhanced by the LAT 's report on the crackdown, featuring bitter you-asked-for-it-now-you're-going-to-get-it quotes from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff:Chertoff acknowledged. "There will be some unhappy consequences for the economy out of doing this," he said in an interview with The Times.

Chertoff said he had little sympathy for businesses that hire illegal workers, saying they should have seen the crackdown coming after the Senate failed to pass immigration reform. "We have been crystal clear about what the consequences would be," he said. ...[snip]

Yes, well, I felt this mode of public intimidation was at work during the debate, too:

The communities are so enmeshed through work, church and marriage that it would be impossible to separate now. Well, not impossible, but it probably would kill the community to try.

Rounding up illegal immigrants will be rendered meaningless if the border isn't shut. Most will come right back. It's a dangerous and expensive trip. The border must be shut before any other law gets enacted. Yes, that will cause inflationary pressure in America. Well, maybe our clotted bureaucracy will then have an incentive to create an easier path to legal immigration. We need the citizens in America to deeply desire to be a part of the fabric of the country and community. We don't need a fringe society.

So the government will persecute the common workers, continue to let the criminals have free reign and still not SHUT THE BORDER.

This will be a prescription for voter rage. The voters made their wishes clear and the elites in Washington continue to show contempt for the voters. And they'll hurt the easy targets to make a political point.

Kaus concludes:

Do you trust these men to implement the plan skillfully when they have an explicit interest in causing pain? For example, wouldn't it be better to focus enforcement on new hires whose Social Security numbers don't match, rather than disruptively forcing the firing of existing workers who may have been here for decades? But of course, if it's strategy #2 Bush is pursuing, then destroying the lives of decades-long residents exactly what Chertoff should be focusing on, because that's what will generate the horror stories that might fuel a new push for amnesty. ... It's a new twist on the old Washington Monthly "Firemen First" Principle, in which agencies defend their budgets by making cuts in the most disruptive manner possible, typically by firing firemen and cops. ...

I don't like Michael Chertoff, never have liked him. But I know that he works at the behest of the President. Whether Mama is right and they're rounding up the illegals to create jobs for Americans who will do them, or whether they're trying to impose pain to get their way, the root cause of the problem isn't solved: the influx over our Southern border.